November 15, 2010

McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Sunday that he did not think the Senate should lift the ban during the lame-duck session that begins this week.

"Once we get this study, we need to have hearings. And we need to examine it. And we need to look at whether it's the kind of study that we wanted," McCain said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

McCain, who had previously signaled a willingness to support the will of troops, also has mounted an effort to strip it from the defense authorization bill that sets Pentagon policy.

This statement comes after it has leaked out that the Pentagon study group conducted a survey of active-duty and reserve troops and a majority rejected the the idea that allowing openly gay people to serve in the military would have a negative effect. McCain seems to be gearing up to say it wasn't the right kind of study. I can understand thinking the study group was result-oriented in its research and that the lame duck Congress doesn't have the moral authority to make this decision, but it's sad to see McCain making this issue his legacy.

"This statement comes after it has leaked out that the Pentagon study group conducted a survey of active-duty and reserve troops and a majority rejected the the idea that allowing openly gay people to serve in the military would have a negative effect."

Our soldiers are not the terrified, unprofessional pussies that anti-gay DADT proponents make them out to be. The people who blather on about how our military will fall apart because of a minuscule influx of non-clandestine gays dishonorably impugn the strength and professionalism of our armed forces.

What would you have him leave as his legacy? The McCain-Feingold Free-Speech Abridgment act of 2002? "Build them their damned fence then"? A bumbled presidential campaign that netted us an anti-American socialist for our president?

McCain could take a dump in the well of the Senate and it would be an improvement over his previous accomplishments.

My unit was sent to 29 Palms for gunnery training. Once the month of training is finished, unit departs for home in 2 groups - Group A leaves now, Group B leaves in 2 weeks so they can break down tents, maintenance vehicles and guns, stand guard duty, etc.

Group A is entirely married men. Because the Marine Corps was sensitive to the challenges military families face. Divorce is bad for morale.

Group B is screwed royally. We miss our fiance just as much as the married guys miss their wives. But since we're single, too bad.

Our soldiers are not the terrified, unprofessional pussies that anti-gay DADT proponents make them out to be. The people who blather on about how our military will fall apart because of a minuscule influx of non-clandestine gays dishonorably impugn the strength and professionalism of our armed forces.

Palladian" Our soldiers are not the terrified, unprofessional pussies that anti-gay DADT proponents make them out to be.

We don't make them out to be pussies, you do.

I understand your emotional investment in this, but you continue to ignore the real issue, replacing it with your strawman that Marines will blanch and faint if you introduce gays.

I don't care if gays serve openly the military, WITH THE EXCEPTION that I don't want them mixed in with Victor units. And for the same reason I don't want women mixed in with Victor units.

(And even thats not a good solution - the fast-track to promotion leads through commanding a combat unit. Which means women and gays will not advance to the 0-5 and above ranks in proportion to their numbers.)

This is about living conditions ... I know that living conditions for enlisted men and women in the Navy are almost always communal aboard ships.If the Navy can carve out seperate quarters then it can work, otherwise not.

Sorry, but in this case a bare "majority" does not cut it. Let's say that in the Marines 40% object - 25% mildly and 15% strongly. Do we take the risk that some or all of that 15% will quit in order to let in a few gay dudes who would not otherwise have joined? How about a survey of gays to see how many would actually join the armed forces absent DADT? How about we ask which branch - maybe we should let the Air Force and/or the Navy try it first. Gay jokes about the Navy aside, those services are have a far higher percentage of MOSs open to females already, so presumably integration would be easier. Let's try it there for a few years and see how it goes, and them consider imposing it on the Army and Marines - you know, the services which have done the vast majority of the fighting and dying since 9/11.

Don't get me wrong - the civilian authorities set policy and the military executes it, but IF you are going to take the wishes of the troops into consideration, then a bare majority is really no sufficient.

I use the Marines as an example because of their billeting policy and the fact that they have the highest percentage of guys at the pointy end of the stick, where this matters most.

As a civilian, I work with plenty of gay people and it does not bother me a bit, but when I think back to being a junior enlisted, I think I would have been extremely uncomfortable sharing those close quarters with an obviously out guy, and I come from a pretty tolerant, middle class background.

Palladian, I have no doubt that most military personnel will have no problem serving with openly gay people. And those who have trouble with it will learn to cope.

I just wonder what the additional expense will be in barracks and accommodations. And whether that money could have been spent on something to kill the enemy or to protect our personnel.

I wonder if some of the homophobic people who choose not to serve because of the end of DADT might possibly have made excellent snipers or outstanding pilots; and whether their numbers will be fully made up by the excellent snipers and outstanding pilots in the ranks of those who wouldn't have served because of DADT.

I doubt that. Most gays who want to serve already do; they just don't advertise their sexuality. They're professionals; and if they were polled, I'd wager that most of them have no problem with DADT.

And I wonder about all of these things primarily because of who's pushing the end of DADT the hardest: Leftists who have, for all time, wanted to slash the military budget, hamstring the military with suicidial rules of engagement, and slander them. If ending DADT was a positive for the US military, George Soros would be the biggest DADT proponent.

Fen, if you're going to use obscure jargon such as "victor unit" that only a small percent of even Marines understand, then please remember that victor units include the aviation squadrons that already have women in them.

The CRWG announced their study and how they planned to use it back in March. From www.army.mil:

WASHINGTON (March 3, 2010) -- The Defense Department's review on the potential impact of repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military will solicit input from troops of every service and rank -- as well as their families -- through surveys, focus groups and social media tools, the team heading up the review told Congress today.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon's general counsel; Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe; and Clifford Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told the House Armed Services Committee today they seek to get the widest range of viewpoints from both within and outside the Defense Department as they conduct the review concerning potential repeal of the law commonly known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered the 10-month review in February to solicit views about a repeal, as well as the potential impact if Congress directs it. He issued guidelines and parameters for the review yesterday, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that any change in the law is implemented in a way that minimizes disruptions in military operations.

Toward that end, the working group will focus its work on assessing any impact a repeal would have on readiness, recruiting, retention, family readiness and unit cohesion, Johnson said.

It really will be a good thing when the Boomers die off.

Huh? McCain was a Depression baby, a member of the Silent Generation. Who's the Boomer here?

It was anonymous in that our names were not directly recorded, but it was serialized and sent only to people in the military. In theory it should have been reasonably accurate. But remember that we get a dozen of these to do each year on every topic under the sun and even when we complete the poll we still get email bombed for months to complete it.

On such a politically hot topic, I find it hard to believe that the data was not manipulated. There's not even a law against that, so far as I know. If there are people willing to go to jail to throw an election, there are certainly people willing to misinterpret a poll.

There are people in the military who would side with the repeal of DADT, but in the USMC they would be in the decided minority.

"This statement comes after it has leaked out that the Pentagon study group conducted a survey of active-duty and reserve troops and a majority rejected the the idea that allowing openly gay people to serve in the military would have a negative effect."

If there are people willing to go to jail to throw an election, there are certainly people willing to misinterpret a poll.

So, Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon's general counsel; Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe; and Clifford Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness lack integrity? Or did they inadequately supervise those responsible for polling and data interpretation? Either way, they shouldn't be in their jobs.

Positives: We'd be able to recruit a few people who are openly gay, and who refuse to serve unless they can proclaim this from the rooftops. (I'd imagine such people number in the dozens.) Clandestine gays already serving would be free to talk about what they do with their private parts. We could all feel better about ourselves for having such a non-homophobic society.

So if we spend more money on barracks, and we have a finite supply of money, then we spend less on advanced weapons systems. And if we lose more effective personnel than we gain (and this is a certainty), then we have less effective personnel with less effective weapons.

So more of our soldiers will die in battle.

Maybe it will only be 10 extra casualties. Or 100. Maybe that's an acceptable price to pay for that smug feeling of self-satisfaction in the pit of your stomach.

So I guess the world will end -- for those 10 or 100 (or whatever the number is) American servicemen -- some of whom, ironically enough, will be gay, and will occupy some of those coffins in your photo.

To the extent to which this is true, homosexuals have done so by keeping their sexual identify and activity under the radar. The proposal is to bring it out into the open. What guarantee is there that everything will be just fine if that happens?

And that's the standard a lot of people have (I certainly do.) We've seen too many people make too many promises how everything will be fine if you do what they want, and when it all goes south, those folks are nowhere to be found, yet we're told that we can't go back to what we had before.

Really, that's something I haven't seen addressed very much. What if repealing DADT doesn't work? What if it does harm troop morale and lower recruitment rates and cause legal headaches and logistical snafus? Who's falling on their sword if all that comes to pass?

Bookmark this page then let's talk about the defeats of the United State Marine Corps after Gays are allowed to serve openly. That's the opinion of most United States Marines including the top Marine, the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps. It's about readiness and effectiveness. My opinion doesn't matter - their's does.

I can understand thinking the study group was result-oriented

Is it not results oriented to recommend that DADT be done away with through a Court decision? And is it not then results oriented to recommend that the Court Decision not be appealed?

If you want this done right (I don't want it but I will accept it) then have it VOTED on. Like the Bill of Rights. The 13th Amendment. Convince the country.

Where McCain is coming from, I understand. Like Fen, I think this is the difference between those who see the issue as one of combat effectiveness and those who see it as a human rights issue.

Those of us who see it as a combat effectiveness issue say, look, the numbers of gays who will join the force absent DADT is small compared to the potential losses of reenlistments and the lowered effectiveness in the impacted units.

I weigh in thinking that the overall impact on force effectiveness is to lower it. Therefore don't do it. I could be wrong.

repeal DADT doesn't end it, it just begins the turmoil. The military (and I speak here for the Army, though it related well to the USMC) is a bi-polar operation. That which is forbidden is forbidden, that which is permitted is encouraged. The moment we repeal DADT, that means that openly gay soldiers become part of the protected class. You need to add them to the quarterly schedule of "sexual harassment" and "Diversity training" classes. Not enough Gays represented at the Service Academies or in the O-5 promotion board? add points in the selection process?

Some Baptist that isn't fully on board with the program? say so in his next OER.

Repeal of DADT is the beginning of a 20 year social experiment in the military and doing it, while we fight a war is a bad time.

So if we spend more money on barracks, and we have a finite supply of money, then we spend less on advanced weapons systems.

Barracks are a lot cheaper than advanced weapons systems. In 2005, the average cost of a single Osprey was $160 million. Even the 40 story, 575,000 sq. ft. Battery Park Ritz-Carlton cost only $115 million to build in 2002.

What are you suggesting, woof, that we follow Israel's lead and start conscription, making sure everyone has to serve? Men and women? How do you think that would work, woof? Would you want the country to make you serve?

Eisenhower advocated UMT, and it would be consistent with the Constitution's emphasis on the militia as the main source of national defense. As I recall, every able-bodied German or Austrian served for a year or 18 months.

Woof: 22 of the 26 militaries in NATO are useless as fuck and don't fight. Israel fights, but it has a conscript army, not a professional one. They have no recruiting problems because service is mandatory. Bad comparison.

In the Israeli army, the gays and lesbians tend to flock to a certain intel unit, where they work desk jobs and schtup each other like rabbits in their off time. Think the Defense Language Institute in Monterey but with yarmulkes. (Ever notice how so many gay discharges are linguists? Gays don't distribute themselves randomly.)

The U.S. military is much, much more modular. Totally different environment than Israel's.

Also, the U.S. military is expeditionary. Israeli soldiers commute to the battlefield and come home on weekends. The lifestyle issues are totally different.

"What would you have him leave as his legacy? The McCain-Feingold Free-Speech Abridgment act of 2002? "Build them their damned fence then"? A bumbled presidential campaign that netted us an anti-American socialist for our president?"

My native state of Wisconsin dumped that horse's patoot Feingold. Too bad Arizona didn't do the same to McCain for soiling himself continually in public on major issues.

I work with openly gay people and it doesn't affect my, or their, performance.

My sister once worked in an office where she was the only straight (and the only woman). The gays began each Monday morning loudly recapping their weekend's activity. That's how, for example, my sister learned what "fisting" was about, much to her regret. But she didn't want to rat her coworkers out to her boss -- she'd rather have dealt with one kind of unpleasantness rather than having her coworkers look at her as the enemy.

I personally think the whole DADT is the most made up piece bullshit controversy in recent history, but I'm afraid McCain's actions here are going to doom any chances he has in the future for running for President. That and just being too flippin' old.

I guess I'm not that sure having openly gay servicemen is going to deter elistment. I mean recruit Johnson goes knowing he is likely going to be sent far from home, loved ones, to a nasty place were the indigenous population really dislikes him to the point where they're doing thier damndest to blow him up yet he's still ready and willing to go right up to the point he's told one of his squadies, Maurice is openly gay and decides to get a job at Lowes instead.

I have personal knowledge of a case in which a junior enlisted female was coerced into a lesbian sadomasochistic scenario - involving multiple women - in exchange for a favorable enlisted evaluation report. The company commander and at least one senior enlisted person were involved.

In this case, a gang of lesbians had essentially taken over the unit and was preying on junior enlisted females.

I guess it was the gays that did the molesting at the Tailhook Association Symposium.

In September 1991, the 35th annual symposium in Las Vegas featured a two-day debrief on Navy and Marine Corps aviation in Operation Desert Storm. It was the largest such meeting yet held, with some 4,000 attendees: active, reserve, and retired personnel.According to a Department of Defense (DoD) report, 83 women and 7 men stated that they had been victims of sexual assault and harassment during the meeting. Several participants later stated that a number of flag officers attending the meetings were aware of the sexual assaults, but did nothing to stop them.[1]

If I recall, one of the questions in the poll was something along the lines of "if homosexuals are allowed to serve, would you still be able to accomplish your mission?"

No Marine will EVER admit that the mission can't be accomplished. That is all we do and think about. Mission accomplishment comes above troop welfare. That's one of our rules. So to ask if we'd still accomplish the mission is to ask if we would still consider ourselves effective Marines.

The correct answer is that yes, we would still accomplish the mission. But we also still accomplish the mission when we have artillery shells raining down on us and heavy machine guns with a bead on our position. We always accomplish the mission. The question is, at what cost, and should we impose that cost on ourselves.

Of course heterosexual harassment happens. My intent was to shoot down Mary's statement: "You don't think fellas like yourself at service age are strong enough to "just say no" to sexual advances, it seems."

In this particular case, no, she was not. And neither were a number of other junior enlisted females.

the 'issue' is not should gay people serve..they do and always have..the question is should there be an end to dishonorably tossing them out for nothing that they have done but for who they are. this idea that, once being gay isn't cause for having your career come to an abrupt end, gay soldiers will suddenly run amok rather than continuing to serve professionally is absurd and an insult to brave citizens who have chosen to put their lives on the line to defend our country.

Otherwise, it's basic discrimination and more and more we're seeing, that serves no beneficial purpose to servicemen or women as a whole.

1. Obviously, you haven't made that case. The service chiefs believe that it does serve a beneficial purpose to servicemen and woman as a whole. More importantly, they believe it does serve the interests of the accomplishment of the mission.

2. You are throwing around the word "discrimination" as if it were a bad thing. It is not. Only stupid people don't discriminate. Scratch that... nobody would survive childhood without being discriminating.

The military routinely discriminates against fat people and the handicapped, too. It discriminates against people with felony records, it discriminates against people with poor credit (try getting a security clearance!) and it discriminates against people who cheat on their wives. All in the name of mission accomplishment.

You'd be insane not to discriminate. So obviously it's not the discrimination that's the problem - it's the fact that the discrimination is against one of your favored groups.

The reason for the discrimination is military readiness. The service chiefs think it is best to continue the policy. You take the opposite view.

Are you more of an expert on readiness than they are, that we should listen to you? If not, then admit there are legitimate concerns about readiness if we lift the prohibition. (Note: ending DADT strengthens the prohibition; it does not weaken it.)

If you are not more of an expert than they are, then why should we substitute your judgment for theirs?

I saw what Jason saw. The problem with gays in the military is not with males. Take my word for it—24 years active duty. Bull dykes are the real problem. They are more coarse, aggressive, and crude than the worst male boss you can imagine. They will take advantage of their authority in every way possible. They will blackmail, extort, and take advantage of what ever power they have. I have seen it.

I think with males, part of the problem with gays in the military is that gays seen as vulnerable are going to be assaulted by the dumbest 10 percent of the unit.

The problem is that you cannot get rid of the dumbest 10 percent, because then you get a new dumbest 10 percent. And you cannot identify them in advance. You can only identify them after someone has been victimized. I'm thinking of a 19 year old private who was beaten to death with a bat in a barracks at Ft. Campbell, a few years back, though there have been other cases.

The comments re lesbians are interesting - when I was wearing green, they tended to cluster in the MPs for some reason. Most of us combat types thought they were actually pretty kick-ass - generally far more military than the straight chicks.

The Canadian Army had no policy whatsoever against homosexuals serving, but though I met lots of lesbians and bisexual women, I never met an openly gay man. Maybe that's because I spent very little time in HQs or rear echelon units, but I doubt it. Canadian society may be a lot more tolerant on paper, but I think that the working-class males ages 18-25 are pretty much the same.

Tell me, how did it work out when we forced those working-class white men to integrate with their black counterparts back in the day?

1. Race is not homosexuality.

2. It was very difficult. Integrated units broke and ran and got overrun in Korea. But you didn't know that, did you? Read "About Face." by Col. David Hackworth, for the grunt's eye view of how that went down. How many men died when those units broke? How many died or were maimed taking back the ground they lost?

You really have a Mickey Mouse and cupcakes view of history, and no understanding of the issues involved.

And I know exactly how Winchell lived and worked. In a barracks full of other 18-25 year old infantrymen.